narig01Sadly the Locomotive Engineer has died from his injuries. http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/03/metrolink-engineer-dies-one-week-after-grade-crossing-collision-derailment Regards IGN
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2015/03/metrolink-engineer-dies-one-week-after-grade-crossing-collision-derailment
Regards IGN
Heated up the link.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
The Los Angeles Times report of the engineer's passing is FREE. On the below article, scroll down to the text.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-20150303-story.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Euclid [snipped - PDN.] . . . He became stalled on the tracks and did exactly what Operation Lifesaver tells drivers to do. They tell drivers to make no attempt to extricate your stalled vehicle. Just leave it where it is and run for safety. In this case, I think the driver even did make some attempt to extricate the vehicle and get it into the clear. The driver did contact the police about the situation exactly as he was supposed to do. . . .
Link to a news report published Dec. 14, 2014 about a school bus full of students getting "stuck" or "caught under" under the gate at a diagonal crossing at the intersection of Church and Chestsnut Sts. in Hazleton, PA. "Authorities say the bus driver did the right thing by staying put . . . ". Fortunately, this NS line is a branch, and the locals say the usual speed is about 10 MPH, so there really wasn't much danger to the bus and its children.
http://wnep.com/2014/12/17/officials-check-railroad-crossing-safety/
- Paul North.
Looks like due to the angle, the bus ended up under the gate but was nowhere near the foul of the track (if I'm looking at the video right). I'd assume the bus had to pull out that far to look up the tracks when the gates activated.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks.
Grade Separation is in the hands of governmental entities - they are the folks that believe it is too expensive to protect the voters that put them in office.
If the railroads could, they would close all grade crossings and end the problem tomorrow - they can't. Today's carriers are actively working to close as many crossings as possible - on my carrier it is one of the things division level personnel are graded on for their bonus and advancement.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Disagree. There is always room for improvement. Whether the powers that be are willing to pay those costs is open to speculation.
There seems, however, an unwillingness on the part of some posters to acknowledge that others may have a valid opinion. Snarky comments only reinforce that image.
Norm
Norm48327 schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Disagree. There is always room for improvement. Whether the powers that be are willing to pay those costs is open to speculation. There seems, however, an unwillingness on the part of some posters to acknowledge that others may have a valid opinion. Snarky comments only reinforce that image.
EuclidEven though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.”
Have a reference for that outlandish claim?
Snarky? Perhaps you should look up the defintion, because you misuse the term whenever some state facts which you do not like. Just within the hour, on the other current crossing thread another forum member described the victims of crossing accidents with a pejorative.
"Unfortantley there are idiots who will never respect grade crossings, and then wonder why they get into a collision. "
EuclidAdding more safety measures to crossings conflicts the Darwin solution to the grade crossing problem. Added safety might preserve the stupid, and thus perpetuate the crossing problem.
We must remember the old saw about making things foolproof only increases the skill of the fools (or something like that).
And there is the phenomenon of diminishing returns. As has been noted - no matter what the solution, someone will figure out a way to defeat it. Thus adding increments of improved protection at some point costs more than accepting the risk. This is a decision that local authorities moreso than the railroad have to make. The ultimate railroad solution is simple - close the crossing.
A few examples to the contrary, the only true solution is no crossings at all. I don't think anyone will dispute that. The problem with that solution is expense and logistics. In many cases, the cost of the proper solution is out of reach (actually or politically) of those who desire it, or the logistics (ie, tearing down businesses and homes, etc) are less palatable than living with things as they are.
You can engineer out most mistakes - find a common denominator and figure out a way to prevent the offending behavior. The idea of putting a notice on the gates noting that they are breakaway is an example of that, as is the idea of a movable barrier across the tracks, parallel with the road crossing as discussed earlier in this thread.
But it's hard to engineer out the person who cheats the interlocks or ignores the signs and warnings that 99.44% of the populace reacts properly to. And that's the one that gets smacked at the crossing.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Grade Separation is in the hands of governmental entities - they are the folks that believe it is too expensive to protect the voters that put them in office. If the railroads could, they would close all grade crossings and end the problem tomorrow - they can't. Today's carriers are actively working to close as many crossings as possible - on my carrier it is one of the things division level personnel are graded on for their bonus and advancement.
I agree. Unfortunately, judging from the comments, some on this forum do not seem to want the rails or the governments to pay for any enhancements to crossing safety (grade separation, 4-quadrant, median barriers, etc.) which also provide safety benefits for locomotive engineers and on some lines, passengers.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Grade Separation is in the hands of governmental entities - they are the folks that believe it is too expensive to protect the voters that put them in office. If the railroads could, they would close all grade crossings and end the problem tomorrow - they can't. Today's carriers are actively working to close as many crossings as possible - on my carrier it is one of the things division level personnel are graded on for their bonus and advancement. I agree. Unfortunately, judging from the comments, some on this forum do not seem to want the rails or the governments to pay for any enhancements to crossing safety (grade separation, 4-quadrant, median barriers, etc.) which also provide safety benefits for locomotive engineers and on some lines, passengers.
You keep shooting the messengers and ignoring the realities of the situation.
Norm48327 schlimm BaltACD schlimm Over the past years, it's clear that many forum members reject the concept and cost of better rail crossing protection: "Darwin Award winners" "Idiots" "too expensive" etc. But it is a two-edged sword, since it seems possible that railroad personnel need better protection from vehicles, whatever the cause of their being on the tracks. Grade Separation is in the hands of governmental entities - they are the folks that believe it is too expensive to protect the voters that put them in office. If the railroads could, they would close all grade crossings and end the problem tomorrow - they can't. Today's carriers are actively working to close as many crossings as possible - on my carrier it is one of the things division level personnel are graded on for their bonus and advancement. I agree. Unfortunately, judging from the comments, some on this forum do not seem to want the rails or the governments to pay for any enhancements to crossing safety (grade separation, 4-quadrant, median barriers, etc.) which also provide safety benefits for locomotive engineers and on some lines, passengers. You keep shooting the messengers and ignoring the realities of the situation.
Your tangential posts make as little sense as your PM threats.
zugmann Euclid Even though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.” Have a reference for that outlandish claim?
Euclid Even though drivers can simply make a mistake, the industry’s bitterness over the perpetual crossing problem causes it to label grade crossing crash victims as “stupid.” This allows the industry to justify the lack of a fix for the problem with the conclusion that, “You can’t fix stupid.”
tree68 Paul_D_North_Jr K.P. - I see several streetlights in your photos above. Are there any at the Oxnard crossing ? - Paul North. I see one street light at the crossing, on the east side of the street. There are more up the street, looking north. This fellow is hardly the first to take the tracks instead of the street. In recent years that's been blamed on more than a few occasions on blindly following a GPS. No GPS has been mentioned in any reports so far, so it's likely we can rule that option out.
Paul_D_North_Jr K.P. - I see several streetlights in your photos above. Are there any at the Oxnard crossing ? - Paul North.
K.P. - I see several streetlights in your photos above. Are there any at the Oxnard crossing ?
I see one street light at the crossing, on the east side of the street. There are more up the street, looking north.
This fellow is hardly the first to take the tracks instead of the street. In recent years that's been blamed on more than a few occasions on blindly following a GPS. No GPS has been mentioned in any reports so far, so it's likely we can rule that option out.
The closest streetlight to the track and where this truck went wrong is over the northbound lanes of S. Rice St., about 50 ft. south of the track and parallel to it. Important query: Was it working at all ? (let alone bright enough to illuminate the track) [You might be surprised how many streetlights are not working, at least around here. It took me over 2 months to get repaired the 4 that were out of 7 at a major interchange - I-380 and PA 940.] The next closest streetlight is over the westbound lanes of E. 5th St./ Calif. Hwy. 34, about 100 ft. from the track and about 200 ft. from where the truck got stuck, so I doubt if it was of much help (even if it was working).
A couple factors not mentioned yet: Note that the crossing itself is precast concrete panels - a different color, texture, and patttern from the rest of the street, but too narrow to look like another street. Shouldn't have that raised a question in his mind ?
Also, there are signals and gates on the center island of S. Rice St., as well as at both sides. The gates are reflectorized as well, as is typical. Didn't all that vertical and substantial hardware and reflectorized striping in the middle of the street and on both sides catch his eye, either ?
I suspect he was either impaired in some way (drugs, alcohol, medications, sleep deprivation, etc.), or else very distracted ("head in the cockpit" syndrome) from either a cell phone or trying to read and follow his directions, etc., to miss these rather obvious features of his location. His 'situational awareness' evidently was about zero.
EuclidI don’t have a verbatim reference for the claim. But I have observed the general principle expressed hundreds of times. It is expressed dozens of times in the comments following any grade crossing crash reported in the news. I have seen it at least 100 times here on the forum.
None of us on the forum speak for railroads. So you cannot make that claim.
zugmann Euclid I don’t have a verbatim reference for the claim. But I have observed the general principle expressed hundreds of times. It is expressed dozens of times in the comments following any grade crossing crash reported in the news. I have seen it at least 100 times here on the forum. None of us on the forum speak for railroads. So you cannot make that claim.
Euclid I don’t have a verbatim reference for the claim. But I have observed the general principle expressed hundreds of times. It is expressed dozens of times in the comments following any grade crossing crash reported in the news. I have seen it at least 100 times here on the forum.
Nothing I said depends on forum members officially speaking for the railroads. But both railroaders and railfans express this general "Can't fix stupid" view on the forum all the time. I will go further and say that that view is held only by railroaders and railfans.
I have never encountered that view with the MUTCD, Operation Lifesaver, or the police, for example. I recently talked to someone from OL for who told me he was appalled by the reaction of "foamers" (his term) to the driver killed in the Metro North crash.
Euclid I will go further and say that that view is held only by railroaders and railfans.
...of this forum.
A very small percentage. I can probably count the number of RRers on this forum on 2 hands. Not exactly a great sample size.
Paul_D_North_Jr The closest streetlight to the track and where this truck went wrong is over the northbound lanes of S. Rice St., about 50 ft. south of the track and parallel to it. Important query: Was it working at all ? (let alone bright enough to illuminate the track) - Paul North.
The closest streetlight to the track and where this truck went wrong is over the northbound lanes of S. Rice St., about 50 ft. south of the track and parallel to it. Important query: Was it working at all ? (let alone bright enough to illuminate the track)
Paul_D_North_Jr A couple factors not mentioned yet: Note that the crossing itself is precast concrete panels - a different color, texture, and patttern from the rest of the street, but too narrow to look like another street. Shouldn't have that raised a question in his mind ? Also, there are signals and gates on the center island of S. Rice St., as well as at both sides. The gates are reflectorized as well, as is typical. Didn't all that vertical and substantial hardware and reflectorized striping in the middle of the street and on both sides catch his eye, either ? I suspect he was either impaired in some way (drugs, alcohol, medications, sleep deprivation, etc.), or else very distracted ("head in the cockpit" syndrome) from either a cell phone or trying to read and follow his directions, etc., to miss these rather obvious features of his location. His 'situational awareness' evidently was about zero.
I've been wondering about his situational awareness as well - distraction or sleep deprivation would be my guesses. While neither have the severe legal implications of a DUI, they both can still be used against the driver.
My older son got his learner's permit a couple of weeks ago and a couple of weeks before that he and I sat through a presentation given by the Sheriff's department on various hazards of driving. There is a very big push in California to reduce distractions while driving, with some examples of serious injuries and fatalitites caused by distracted drivers. The deputy giving the presentation specifically mentioned that he will ticket anyone attempting to send or read texts while driving.
- Erik
IGN: Beg pardon - but are you sure you're looking at the correct portion of S. Rice Ave. ? If you go to the Oxnard Avenue link by tree68/ Larry above, and rotate around, 4 streetlights can be seen at the intersection with E. 5th St., although as I noted above only 1 of them would possibly have been helpful. Also, the only wall I see is on the west side of S. Rice St. on the northern side of the crossing, and that's only 4 - 5 ft. high - more of a view block for the business there than any kind of sound wall. The other things that might look like 'walls' are really just fences.
I mentioned sleep deprivation (drowsiness) as a possible cause or factor above. However, I would expect that to cause a driver to continue in a straight line, rather than make a hard turn, which necessitates a more conscious act.
blue streak 1: And, those older kinds of lights can go dim appreciably before they go out. Also, before that happens, some kinds will 'cycle' on and off at intervals of from 30 secs. to a minute. I've also seen many fairly new LED streetlights in the City of Bethlehem that are completely out - they're scattered (though quite a few are along Rt. 378), so it's not like a bad circuit or one that was turned off, etc.
I'll buy anyone a pretty good lunch if you can show me a utility - not a municipal Public Works Dept. - but a big electric utility that has any kind of regular program to go around and find and repair streetlights that are out or 'cycling', etc. Darn few DOTs or PW Depts. do it either, but there may be 1 or 2 someplace that I don't know about. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp#End_of_life
http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/10283/when-i-drive-at-night-the-street-lights-turn-off-and-on-is-this-caused-by-me
Paul_D_North_Jr I'll buy anyone a pretty good lunch if you can show me a utility - not a municipal Public Works Dept. - but a big electric utility that has any kind of regular program to go around and find and repair streetlights that are out or 'cycling', etc. Darn few DOTs or PW Depts. do it either, but there may be 1 or 2 someplace that I don't know about. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp#End_of_life http://www.inwardquest.com/questions/10283/when-i-drive-at-night-the-street-lights-turn-off-and-on-is-this-caused-by-me - Paul North.
zugmann Euclid I will go further and say that that view is held only by railroaders and railfans. ...of this forum. A very small percentage. I can probably count the number of RRers on this forum on 2 hands. Not exactly a great sample size.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In the fire service we talk about making things "firefighter-proof." Hasn't happened yet.
It's a pretty commonly held thought throughout the safety industry that all making something fool-proof does is cause the fools to find new ways to get around whatever it is the feature is supposed to prevent. Policies, procedures, and engineering can only do so much. After that, it's up to the individual to make use of those policies, procedures, and engineering.
Or take the individual completely out of the picture by automating a process, which would be analogous to eliminating a crossing.
I've been in the fire service for almost 37 years. I've seen some traffic incidents (that had nothing to do with railroads) that shouldn't have happened, but for whatever reason, they did. A stop sign means nothing to a dead man as his truck blows through a stop sign and broadsides a school bus full of kids.
tree68 Euclid I will go further and say that that view is held only by railroaders and railfans. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the fire service we talk about making things "firefighter-proof." Hasn't happened yet. It's a pretty commonly held thought throughout the safety industry that all making something fool-proof does is cause the fools to find new ways to get around whatever it is the feature is supposed to prevent. Policies, procedures, and engineering can only do so much. After that, it's up to the individual to make use of those policies, procedures, and engineering. Or take the individual completely out of the picture by automating a process, which would be analogous to eliminating a crossing. I've been in the fire service for almost 37 years. I've seen some traffic incidents (that had nothing to do with railroads) that shouldn't have happened, but for whatever reason, they did. A stop sign means nothing to a dead man as his truck blows through a stop sign and broadsides a school bus full of kids.
You are missing my point which I laid out starting with the 9th post on this page, and continued in subsequent exchange. I am certainly not suggesting that crossing safety should or can be fool proof. I agree with all your points about that.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.